Question

Read the passage from a debate speech.

The current trade situation in this nation is unacceptable. We continue to lose money to other nations, while those nations prosper. I have a detailed plan to get our country—and its people—back on the right track. My opponent, who uses her time to spread lies and rumors while eating nice dinners bought by you taxpayers, does not even have a plan. I question her priorities.

Which statement best explains why the evidence provided in the text is a fallacy?

The speaker uses anecdotal evidence with phrases like “back on the right track.”
The speaker uses a bandwagon statement by complaining that other nations prosper.
The speaker uses an ad hominem argument by attacking an opponent’s honesty.
The speaker uses a false dilemma by claiming to have the ideal plan.

Answer 1

The best explanation for why the evidence in the text is a fallacy is that the speaker uses an ad hominem argument by attacking the opponent's honesty and character instead of addressing the trade policies.

Step-by-step explanation:

The statement in the debate speech is an example of a logical fallacy because the speaker uses an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument attacks a person's character or behavior rather than focusing on the argument or issues at hand. In this case, the speaker attacks the opponent's honesty and accuses them of spending taxpayer money on nice dinners, instead of addressing the actual trade policies or providing evidence to support the claim that the current situation is 'unacceptable' and that their plan would put the country 'back on the right track'.